Council Letter to Millcreek City Leaders

Dear
Mayor and Council Members,

Last year, Salt Lake City received your
request for a number of adjustments to the boundary between our two cities,
including parcels in and near Brickyard Plaza, Tanner Park, Parleys Historic
Nature Park and a roundabout at 2300 East Street near 2700 South Street.

Our Council Members met in small groups
with Mayor Silvestrini and City of Millcreek staff, discussing the proposal at
length. At every occasion, our message has been clear. Any boundary adjustment
between the two cities of Salt Lake and Millcreek would have to come with no
net loss of tax revenue for Salt Lake City and our residents, in perpetuity. An
ongoing net loss would spread the existing costs of operating Salt Lake City
over a smaller tax base, and our constituents would bear the burden.

We were surprised to learn that Millcreek’s
proposed General Plan anticipates these same boundary adjustments as part of
Millcreek’s future land use, despite Salt Lake City’s elected officials’ clear
message: The boundary adjustments are not equitable. What’s more, the Plan
calls for a more aggressive scenario, grabbing after sections of our City between
2700 South and Millcreek’s existing border. This adjustment would even result
in one of our current Council Members no longer residing in Salt Lake City.

The General Plan goes on to discuss sales
tax “loss” to Salt Lake City due to existing boundary alignments. My colleagues
and I would like to set the record more clearly. Sales and property tax in the
Brickyard area—part of Salt Lake for over four decades—are not “lost” by
Millcreek, because they have never been part of the two-year old city’s tax
base. Salt Lake City, however, budgets for these revenues year-over-year. We
provide services for the area, include its development in our master plans and consider
the land and people an integral and indispensable part of the capital city. We
encourage you to remove Salt Lake City from the City of Millcreek’s future land
use map.

We’re still willing to come to the table
and work for a mutual solution. However, as I and my colleagues have also said
on more than one occasion, we cannot do so under threat of State legislation that
would mandate an outcome that should only be the result of negotiations between
and among cities. State politics should not interfere with these municipal land
use decisions.

The Salt Lake City Council admires and
respects the great work that property owners and Millcreek residents undertook
to gain voter approval for the City of Millcreek’s creation. We express our
support, respect and admiration for the good work you do to efficiently
organize, position and manage Millcreek. Just as you are elected by and
accountable to your voters and taxpayers, we are accountable to our voters and
taxpayers. We cannot support any proposal that creates a net loss of Salt Lake
City’s base revenue; we cannot divert that base revenue from core City services
without compensation. As noted, such a proposal is currently exhibited in
Millcreek’s General Plan.

We welcome the opportunity to work with you
to negotiate an equitable solution; this might involve collaboration between
our cities on any number of alternative proposals, recognizing our mutual needs
and rich opportunities for interface at our shared border. We look forward to
working together as neighbors with shared interests. We want Salt Lake City and
Millcreek to thrive and prosper together. We stand ready to continue this
conversation and build a mutually respectful and fruitful relationship.